These are just three of several biases (“inflexible beliefs about particular categories of people”) of which I have become aware in the last several years. This awareness came to me in [...]]]> “All people over 80 have uninteresting lives.”
“Young black men who play music loud in cars only listen to rap music.”
“All gay men are artistic and fastidious.”

These are just three of several biases (“inflexible beliefs about particular categories of people”) of which I have become aware in the last several years. This awareness came to me in a variety of ways, most of which grew out of the fact that, because of the nature of my work, bias tends to be on my mind much of the time. I’m not proud of them, of course, but I am glad I know these biases are there so I can begin the process of eradicating them from my thinking.

For most of us, however, getting in touch with our biases is hardly the only thing on our minds.

Sure we’d like to become more aware, but the stresses and rush of the workplace leave little room for this kind of ongoing introspection. Sometimes too we resist looking at the tiny clues that our behavior and thoughts toss up to us. This is usually because we suffer under the misguided notion that having a bias makes us “bad people” and, therefore, we struggle to avoid the issue altogether.

Whatever the reason for the inability to spot our biases, one solution is to turn to trusted co-workers for help. To facilitate this teamwork, I have designed a process called a “Bias-Spotter Partnership” that can readily be employed in any workplace where inclusion and bias-reduction are a priority.

Why Use a Bias-Spotter Partnership?

Research has shown that accountability to another person is a key component of bias reduction. Not only do the observations of each partner serve to identify bias, but the very fact that another person is “on duty” motivates each partner to stay more alert to her own biases and to any inappropriate behaviors that might arise from those biases.

The Bias Spotter strategy is not intended as a means of setting up a mini­­–police state. To the contrary, it is rooted in trust and friendship. In order for this process to be effective, these guidelines must be followed:

1. As in any good partnership, both parties must commit to the betterment of the team.

2. Both partners must be willing and able to make all observations in the spirit of mutual support; this is not about being accusatory or intrusive.

3. As much as possible within the policies of the company, all observations are to be kept strictly between the partners.

4. Both partners need to remember that a bias is an attitude, not a behavior—no mind reading allowed.

5. Bias Spotter partners need to be extra vigilant when one of them is functioning in a new environment. This is because a bias may be activated in one setting but not another. Partner A, for example, may not feel or show any bias toward immigrants when in her own department. But, when visiting another location and feeling less comfortable, she may.

6. Bias Spotter partners also need to be vigilant when a partner is rushed or working under an unusual amount of stress. It is at times like these that we crave easy answers and quick solutions. Biases, because they are so readily accessible, are a tempting ally when time is at a premium.

How Does a Bias-Spotter Partnership Work?

Each person is responsible for observing the decisions, words, and behaviors of his partner. He must comment to his partner if he feels the behavior is inappropriate and/or if he suspects there is a biased attitude behind that behavior. If a questionable behavior is observed, the partner might probe deeper by asking questions like:

1. “That comment seemed a little inappropriate to me. I wonder, have you had any bad experiences with members of that group that could be influencing your attitude toward them?” (If the answer is yes, there might be a bias at work.)

2. “Would you have made the same decision if the people involved were from a different group?” (If the decision were different, it is possible that it was influenced by a bias.)

3. “If the person about whom you made that decision why you decided as you did, would he respect your reasoning or would he feel discriminated against?” (If he would feel discriminated against, a bias likely lies behind the decision.)

4. “Would you like your children or other loved ones to know why you did that?” (If not, that action might be influenced by a bias of which the person is not proud.)

5. “I keep noticing that you don’t coach members of different groups equally. Do you have any thoughts about what that might mean about your attitudes?” (If the answer is that some groups need gentler treatment or can’t measure up anyway, there might be a bias at work.)

6. “How would you feel if you learned that a colleague had done the same thing? Would you suspect her of bias? (If the answer is yes, your Bias Spotter partner should become suspicious of his own attitudes too.)

7. “The last three people you promoted were from the same demographic group. I wonder if you might be favoring that group over another. What do you think?” (If your Bias-Spotter partner does not have an objective reason for the promotions, a bias in favor of one group might have influenced her decision.)

How bias-partners are selected will be dictated by the culture and inclusion climate of your workplace. Perhaps you might start, for example, by pairing members of your Diversity Council or other diversity leaders and expand from there. That will give you an opportunity to assess the process’ effectiveness in your organization and adjust it to more specifically meet your needs.

Sondra Thiederman is a speaker and author on bias-reduction, diversity, and cross-cultural issues. Her latest book, Making Diversity Work: Seven Steps for Defeating Bias in the Workplace (New York: Kaplan Publishing, Revised second edition, 2008), provides practical tools for defeating bias and bias-related conflicts in the workplace. She can be contacted for Webinars and in-person presentations at: www.Thiederman.com, STPhD@Thiederman.com, 800-858-4478.

On the other hand, I never [...]]]> When I was growing up, both my parents smoked. I also spent my most formative years breathing the smog-choked air of Los Angeles County. Come to think of it, I had a boyfriend or two who was addicted to nicotine in the days when most people didn’t think much of it.

On the other hand, I never smoked myself. Well, that’s not quite true. I do remember the time when I snuck into my parent’s bedroom to see what all this smoking fuss was about. Being a naïve 10-year-old, I didn’t stop to think that my father might walk in, which he did. Somehow I have a memory of my contorting my never-to-be-nicotine-stained hand behind my back to hide my sin only to realize that the smoke from the cigarette was wafting straight up my spine creating, much to my father’s surprise, the incongruous image of my hair being on fire. Yes, I got caught.

Taking all that into consideration, am I predisposed to lung cancer? How at risk am I for emphysema? It’s hard to say, but clearly I am at greater risk than those whose parents did not smoke or who grew up breathing the pristine air of an offshore island.

We can ask the same question about our biases.

How much do our early experiences and environment predispose us to holding biases – those inflexible positive or negative beliefs about particular categories of people that so readily interfere with our developing healthy and productive relationships?

Like cancer or diabetes or high blood pressure, there are certain factors that predispose us to developing biases. That’s not to say that these factors guarantee this affliction – just as having a parent who smokes does not guarantee respiratory problems – but it does mean we are at greater risk than those who experienced different influences. Here are some of those risk factors. Do any of these statements apply to you?

1. While growing up, the people who raised me talked a lot about how bad prejudice and bias were, but never in fact socialized much with people different from themselves.

Predisposing Element: A mixed message about the value of diversity

2. Early in life I had a strong negative experience with a given group, but have rarely interacted with that group since.

Predisposing Element:  A negative association that was never diluted by a wider variety of experiences

3. As I child, my parents and teachers sent the message that is was disrespectful to point out the ways in which someone else is different.

Predisposing Element: The message that it was wrong to acknowledge difference contains the sub-text that there is something wrong with that difference

4.  When I was a child, I remember that when my parents recounted an incident involving people from a different group, they often mentioned the race or ethnicity of the participants even if it had nothing to do with the story.

Predisposing Element: Mentioning a difference when it is not pertinent sends the message that that difference is of greater importance than the person’s shared humanity

5. Early in life I had a strong positive experience with a given group, but have rarely interacted with that group since.

Predisposing Element: As with a negative experience, the predisposing element is the fact that the positive encounter was never balanced by a wider variety of experiences.

This last risk factor may have surprised you. After all, what could possibly be wrong with having nothing but positive experiences with another group? The answer lies in the definition of bias – “an inflexible positive or negative belief about a particular category of people.” Biases, be they about negative characteristics (“All gay men are promiscuous,” “All young people are unreliable”) or positive traits (“All Asians are good with computers,” “All black people have rhythm”) prevent us from seeing the person as an individual and, therefore, from treating them with respect. When all we have had are positive experiences with a group, we are at grave risk of believing that they are, every single one of them, alike in some way. That sure sounds like bias to me.

Sondra Thiederman is a speaker and author on bias-reduction, diversity, and cross-cultural issues. Her latest book, Making Diversity Work: Seven Steps for Defeating Bias in the Workplace (New York: Kaplan Publishing, Revised second edition, 2008), provides practical tools for defeating bias and bias-related conflicts in the workplace. She can be contacted for Webinars and in-person presentations at: www.Thiederman.com, STPhD@Thiederman.com, 800-858-4478.  

That adolescent was I and all [...]]]> It’s amazing no one drowned in the torrent of water that splashed from the pool. As I think back, it must have been amusing to watch this scrawny adolescent plow across that watery expanse in frenzy, arms flailing. No wonder the other swimmers dog paddled madly toward the edge for safety.

That adolescent was I and all that splashing occurred on the occasion of my final examination from swimming class. This was not just any swimming class, mind you; it consisted of ten weeks of private lessons. That’s right, ten weeks focused solely on giving Sondra Thiederman the tools to fit into a very “beachy” and “pool-side” southern California culture. I learned a lot during those ten weeks. I learned to execute each stroke perfectly, mastered the breathing technique, and, as I recall, was praised for my ability to kick with precision and power.

There was, however, something crucial that I did not learn despite the investment of time and money: I never learned to overcome my fear of water.  This became painfully obvious to the instructor – and my parents – as they watched me end my swimming career by crossing that pool on sheer panic power.

The Power of Fear

All that knowledge, all that technique, you see, did me no good when faced with the real life task of navigating across 14 feet of what felt like fathoms-deep liquid. What, on the other hand, would have happened if that instructor had taken the time to identify my fear and work with it? Maybe then I would have been able to use the skills that he so skillfully supplied.

Most of us have learned the hard way that fear has the power to compromise our performance in many areas of life. Take awkward conversations about diversity for example. I’m talking here about those dreadful and often unexpected moments when we realize we have said something inappropriate but don’t know what to do about it, overheard an offensive remark and felt we must respond but don’t know how, or, more generally, find ourselves faced with a delicate diversity-related topic of conversation.

For many of us, situations like these call up so much emotion that our effectiveness is severely hampered in one or more of these ways.

• Fear interferes with our willingness to enter into the conversation in the first place. In extreme cases, we are so anxious that we just walk away.
• Anxiety prevents us from being able to think on our feet and find the words that best address the situation.
• Agitation blocks our ability to interpret accurately what is going on. We become so distracted by coping with our emotion that we loose sight of the other party’s motivations, intent, and even the meaning of his or her words.
• Fear pulls us out of the moment by tempting us to focus on painful experiences of the past or imagined disasters of the future rather than on the realities of the present.

Just as my fear of water prevented me from swimming efficiently, the discomfort we feel when faced with conversations about diversity interferes with the success of those conversations.

Naming the Fear

This, however, is where the similarity between swimming and talking ends. For me to join my grandson in the pool and frolic at his pace not mine, I need, not only to identify my fear of water, but to overcome it. For me, on the other hand, to have a successful conversation around diversity, merely identifying the discomfort just might be enough. In fact, one of the cornerstones of emotional intelligence posits that naming an emotion can, miraculously, diminish that emotion’s impact on our ability to function.

Here’s an example of just the sort of situation that might have been turned around had either party been able to identify the emotions involved. It was a classic awkward diversity moment that involved myself and a new acquaintance who had recently moved to San Diego. Here’s the scene:

My dinner companion was a black woman named Candace, who had just moved to town and whom I was anxious to welcome into the community. We met at a local restaurant and proceeded to have a great time indulging in “girl talk,” being silly, comparing notes on the best shopping malls in town, and, most fun, trying to figure out how we were going to get her involved in the San Diego dating scene.

After about an hour of light conversation, we began to talk about my work and that led to what promised to be an interesting discussion about various types of diversity. Unfortunately, that promise was an empty one. Once the subject turned to race, there was a subtle shift in atmosphere. We were transformed into different people. Gone were the play and shared interests; we became, instead, a pair of women who were too self-conscious to carry on any kind of honest conversation. And the worst of it was that neither of us so much as commented on what was happening between us.

Looking back, I realize that two stumbling blocks contributed to the broken promise of that evening—stumbling blocks that neither of us was able and/or willing to overcome. The first block was that we were clearly uncomfortable discussing the subject of race. Some say that it requires more intimacy to talk honestly about race than to have sex. That may be overstating it a bit, but talking about race sure is a heck of a lot scarier than chatting about shopping malls and clothes.

The second problem was actually the bigger one: the fact that neither of us was willing to mention that we were uncomfortable. Because of our reluctance to state the obvious, we missed out on a prime opportunity to learn more about the complexities of human difference and how to make them work.

Why didn’t at least one of us speak up? Why did we both begin to swim madly across the pool splashing everyone in sight? I wager it was because, although we knew we were uncomfortable, we didn’t know why. In other words, we were unable to name the fear that was paralyzing our otherwise good communication skills. If I had known that answer, at least from my end, I would have been able to explore the emotion and reduce its power.

Practice Makes Perfect

Here’s some practice in identifying the kind of emotions that can get in our way. Put yourself in my place or in Candace’s—whichever role is most familiar to you (or both)—and try to identify what emotions kept each of us from talking honestly and productively about what was going on. In addition to speculating on the emotions that Candace and I may have felt, ask yourself what fears you might possess that could block your ability to dialogue in a similar situation. Take a moment to do the task before reading on.

Here are some of the feelings and fears that might have been responsible for that ruined dinner conversation. Did you identify any of them?

• One emotion might have been fear of the intimacy (read honesty) and commitment that goes along with healthy conversation about diversity related issues.
• There might also have been a concern that our own biases would be revealed if we carried the conversation forward. Perhaps Candace was concerned that, if we got into a really honest conversation, her bias toward white people would show through and damage a potential friendship. Perhaps I was worried that biases of which I was barely aware might make an inopportune appearance in the form of a misspoken word or poorly chosen phrase.
• Maybe one or both of us was afraid that the other person might become angry. Sadly, where there is diversity, there is always the possibility that old angers are festering just beneath the surface. Alternatively, we might have been worried that our own anger would leak through our reserve and spill out, ruining both the evening and the budding friendship.
• We might have been concerned about appearing uptight, judgmental, or overly serious. Often when a diversity-related subject come up, we run away from it for fear that if we bring up the heavy subject of diversity tension or bias, someone will hurl back at us that most patronizing of all phrases, “Lighten up!”
• Perhaps we were apprehensive that, if we said anything, we would give the impression of not being “nice people.” Maybe neither of us wanted to be negative or confrontational in any way. Perhaps we feared that we would no longer be liked if we mentioned the harsh reality that our new friendship was not developing as smoothly as we had first expected and hoped.

As you live and work in a diverse environment, you will no doubt come up against fears and discomforts and other excuses to hesitate that are not on this list. The more experience you have in encountering, naming, and diffusing your fears, the easier the process will become.

Back to the Pool

If I had confronted my fear of water oh-so-many years ago, I could have worked with it, but because it was never faced, I never made it across a pool again. The same applies to difficult diversity conversations. If we don’t confront the fear we will be in danger of walking away or, worse, slipping into auto responder mode, spouting glib denials and politically correct nonsense, and splashing everyone around us into soggy oblivion.

Sondra Thiederman is a speaker and author on bias-reduction, diversity, and cross-cultural issues. Her latest book, Making Diversity Work: Seven Steps for Defeating Bias in the Workplace (New York: Kaplan Publishing, Revised second edition, 2008), provides practical tools for defeating bias and bias-related conflicts in the workplace. She can be contacted for Webinars and in-person presentations at: www.Thiederman.com, STPhD@Thiederman.com, 800-858-4478.